Standing Committee E

[Part I]

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Peter Pike: Before we start, I must inform the Committee that we are expecting a Division in the House at 4 o'clock. Our proceedings are due to end at 6.55 pm and, judging by our rate of progress, I assume that we will go on until that time. I do not want to call an extra break, so I shall extend the break for the Division at 4 o'clock and make it a half-hour break, and if there are two Divisions, I shall make it a break of 40 minutes. I am assuming, however, that there will only be one Division. I hope that that is clear and acceptable to members of the Committee. I would prefer to do that than have to suspend the Committee twice.
 Secondly, as Chairman, I have to bear in mind the business that we must complete at 6.55 pm. Will members of the Committee who want to debate certain items be mindful of the fact that we must make sensible progress? I am not saying that we have not been doing that, but it is in their hands.

Clause 128 - Duty to provide copy of home information pack on request

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 347, in
clause 128, page 86, line 31, after first 'a', insert 'registered'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 394, in
clause 128, page 87, line 36, at end add— 
 '(10) The meaning of ''registered potential buyer'' shall be provided in regulations made by the Secretary of State'.

Matthew Green: I am mindful of the fact that we need to make progress. I should especially like to reach clause 131and deal with areas of low demand before our sitting ends, and others may share that view. I should apologise to the Committee for the fact that, from 4 o'clock today, I shall not here. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) will deputise for me. He is currently leading for our party on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill. I have to go the House for the second debate. That would not have happened had the Hutton report not knocked the Opposition day out until today—as, to be fair, it should have done.
 I do not think that the Conservatives would want me to talk too much about the Hutton report in the light of today's poll in The Times, so I shall turn to the amendments. To some extent, tabling amendment No. 
 347 was like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In many ways, I am not seriously proposing that it should be made because it is a vastly bureaucratic provision. I have used it to highlight a potential problem with the packs relating to security of information and who has access to the information. 
 When the pack is put together, it will contain more information than we usually see in the particulars that we pick up from an estate agent. It will contain details about the property and, in some cases, it will cover a lot of matters. We are worried that people other than genuine buyers might find such information useful: for example, the pack may contain as part of the home condition report information about whether there is an alarm in the property, which would be of great interest to someone who wanted to break into it. We must also bear in mind that the pack may become a snooper's charter. If some members of the Committee put their house on the market, the media could wander along and pick up the seller's pack. Could they then publish its contents? 
 Issues relating to the information relate to the protection of the home owner as well as of the buyer. Before the Minister becomes too excited, I do not seriously mean that buyers should have to register as buyers, although that is what the amendment states. However, I have a genuine concern. If the Government want to force through such an unpopular idea as packs, they must show that the new system will not be abused. The amendment is simply designed to tease out the Government's thinking on the issue.

Keith Hill: I had intended to proceed with absolute brevity in responding to the amendment. However, since the hon. Gentleman has specifically raised issues of privacy, and even secrecy, let me anticipate what I would have said in response to our debate on amendment No. 426—just in case he is not with us by the time that we reach it, although I very much hope that he will be. I do so on the understanding that I need not cover these issues when we get to that point.
 Let us recall that clause 128 provides that while a property is on the market, the person responsible for its marketing must provide a copy of the home information pack to a potential buyer who requests it within 14 days of receiving a request as well as payment to cover postage and copying costs. Amendment No. 347 proposes that the person responsible for marketing the property will only have to provide a copy of the pack to someone who is a registered potential buyer. Amendment No. 394 provides that the definition of a ''registered potential buyer'' will be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
 I understand and, if I might say so, commend the intention behind the amendment, which is to protect the seller or his agent from being obliged to provide a pack to someone who cannot reasonably be regarded as a bona fide inquirer—or, to use a word that I used in earlier exchanges, someone who might be a timewaster and has no intention of buying the property. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment, which is why we included—if I might draw his attention forward—
 subsection (4). That provides that a responsible person can refuse to comply with a request for a home information pack if he has reasonable grounds to believe 
''that the person making the request— 
 (a) is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question; 
 (b) is not genuinely interested in buying a property of a general description which applies to the property; or 
 (c) is not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property.''

Matthew Green: I have seen subsection (4). One of my concerns is that it is difficult to envisage how an estate agent might distinguish snooping members of the media or potential burglars from potential buyers. If somebody walks in from the street and says, ''I am interested in that property, I want to go and visit it and I want the sellers' pack,'' how will estate agents be able to establish such a person's means, whether such a person is not someone to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell or whether they are genuinely interested? Cases in which someone is out to deceive the estate agent do not seem to be covered by subsection (4).

Keith Hill: In many respects, the hon. Gentleman's question is almost impossible to answer. Obviously, a determined deceit will, almost by definition, succeed in some circumstances. I do not think that there is any foolproof method—certainly not on the face of a piece of legislation—to ensure that the seller or the responsible person will be able to see through that deceit.
 However, let me at least try to set out the thinking behind the provisions. The first provision that supplies grounds to refuse a request is when it is deemed that a person 
''is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question''. 
That condition applies when a seller or his agent believes on reasonable grounds—one cannot really ask for more—that the person could not afford the property. For example, the agent might know the financial circumstances of the person in question. 
 The second circumstance in which the agent would be justified in not responding a request for a home information pack is when he believes that the person expressing the interest 
''is not genuinely interested in buying a property of a general description which applies to the property''. 
 That would apply if it were believed that the person making the request was not really interested in buying the property or one like it. An example of that might be precisely the case given by the hon. Gentleman, which is that of a journalist posing as a buyer to gain access to the home information pack relating to a celebrity's home. Another example is a serial timewaster who is known to the estate agent. Obviously cases of that sort occur, and we would expect the agent to be on the alert for them. If a 
 celebrity's property were on the market, one would absolutely expect the agent to be aware of prurient interest in the property. 
 The third circumstance is that an agent can decline on the grounds that the person 
''is not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property.'' 
That allows someone to not provide a copy of the pack if they believe that the potential buyer is not a person to whom the seller would wish to sell the property. There can be all sorts of caveats that a seller might want to attach to a sale. For example, a seller with a prize-winning garden might instruct the agent not to market it to anyone who is not a keen gardener or who might neglect the garden. That example is plucked from the firmament, but it is not implausible.

Matthew Green: Can the Minister assure me that that provision could not be used if the seller had said that they did not want to sell to someone from an ethnic minority? I was listening to a report last night about housing in Burnley, and this provision strikes alarm bells. Someone could say to an estate agent, ''Sorry I'm not going to sell to anyone of Asian origin.'' That would be disgraceful.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was coming to that point. The short answer is that anti-discrimination legislation supravenes in that circumstance. He is right that there are human rights implications with regard to the right to privacy. The subsection reflects the current position whereby somebody can simply refuse to sell his home to a particular person for no good reason, if he wishes to. Having said that, the provision does not affect anyone's rights under the legislation governing discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or disability. In no way can the provision be used to contravene that legislation. Subsection (5) provides:
 ''Subsection (4) does not apply if the responsible person knows or suspects that the person making the request is an officer of an enforcement authority.'' 
That is also important. 
 The provisions strike a reasonable balance between the need for genuine buyers to get copies of important documents and for sellers or their agents to refuse where they believe that there are good grounds to do so. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) will agree that the provisions offer sufficient protection to the seller and his agent to avoid not only the cost but the emotional and administrative burden of dealing with timewasters and other inappropriate inquiries. I hope that I have met his concerns, and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Peter Pike: Before I call the next speaker, I am probably totally out of order, but when I was selling my house in Burnley last year, one buyer asked whether a Conservative could buy it because I have 18 red roses in every window in stained glass at the front of the house—[Laughter.]—I sold it.

Matthew Green: What more can I add? I thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has responded to the amendments. There are a couple more issues, but they
 will probably be covered in later amendments. We have covered the initial ground well enough, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 348, in
clause 128, page 86, line 37, leave out 'as it stands'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 349, in 
clause 128, page 86, line 38, leave out 'at the time'.

Matthew Green: These two small amendments are intended to get the Government to explain why two phrases are included in the Bill.
 It is not at all clear what the phrase ''as it stands'' adds to the requirement to provide a home information pack. It is unlikely that the seller would alter the contents of the pack unless there had been a mistake in its compilation, in which case alteration would be appropriate. Therefore, we are a bit baffled why those words are included. There might be a very good explanation, but we cannot spot it and—in the absence of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who gets excited about such things—the Law Society cannot either. It brought this to our attention. 
 Amendment No. 349 leaves out ''at the time'' because it is unclear why the Government have used that phrase. I am sure that the Minister has a cogent and rational explanation of its purpose, and I am dying to hear it.

Keith Hill: Let me begin by again expressing my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendments. They raise an issue that might have been the source of some confusion. I shall do my best to provide an explanation of our purposes that matches up to his expectations.
 It is not our intention to place on the responsible person the unnecessary burden of having periodically to update the pack. The Bill essentially places two obligations on the person or persons responsible for marketing a property. The first duty, set out in clause 127, is to have in their possession, while the property is on the market, a home information pack that conforms with regulations made under clause 133—which we may come to one day. The second obligation, set out in clause 128, is to make available to a potential buyer, on request and subject to payment of any fee required to cover the cost, a copy of the home information pack or any document from it. 
 Clause 128(8) allows up to 14 days to comply with a request for a copy of the seller's pack. That is necessary in order to allow reasonable time for a copy to be obtained, and to allow for sickness and holidays, and so on. The duty is to provide a copy of the pack 
''as it stands at the time when the request is made''.
That phrase, which amendments Nos. 348 and 349 seek to remove, is necessary to ensure that the clause does not impose an unreasonable burden on the responsible person by placing on him an implied requirement to constantly update the pack. 
 We envisage that the contents of a home information pack might change over time. Clause 133(9) provides that the Secretary of State may provide in regulations for the time at which any document is to be included in the home information pack. We have in mind to use this power to allow properties to be marketed with an incomplete pack where, through no fault of the seller or the seller's agent, a prescribed document is not available or cannot be obtained within a reasonable period. In such cases, we would require that the absence of the document is noted and inserted in the pack when and if it becomes available.

Matthew Green: I have a what-if point—I know that the Minister likes them. A house might have been put on the market and the seller's pack might be being prepared. What if someone asks for it but before it is handed over the local council produces its first draft deposit plan in the current system or a local government document in the new system? That would be germane if a field adjacent to the house had been marked out for housing. The seller might know that that had happened, but if they had been asked for the pack the day before and they had not yet provided it, they might hand over a pack that did not contain that information, and they do not seem to be under any obligation to provide that information.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. Although the law will require local searches to be included in the home information pack, he sets out what sounds like a potential risk to a would-be purchaser.
 However, the hon. Gentleman alludes to local planning decisions, and such decisions rarely, if ever—I suspect never—emerge suddenly and without warning. In other words, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all local planning processes—even under our speedier, more flexible and more participative local planning structures, which he and I debated at length in another Committee—will be well known and in the public domain. We would expect the possibility of such planning changes to be included in the home information pack. If I can express that in a more succinct and authoritative fashion, I will endeavour to do so, either later in our deliberations or in writing. I think that the drift of my answer is correct, but it is worth being a little more precise about the hon. Gentleman's point. I undertake to respond in writing to the Committee. 
 The contents of the pack might also change if the seller chose to update the information. In such circumstances, the person responsible could be expected to make every effort to ensure that the copy documents were fully up to date—that goes without saying—but that should not be made a formal obligation subject to civil sanctions. I hope that for 
 those reasons the hon. Gentleman will express his satisfaction, and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for giving a reasonable explanation for the words' appearance. I do not wish to detain the Committee; we have other issues to discuss. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sydney Chapman: I beg to move amendment No. 426, in
clause 128, page 87, line 5, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 352, in 
clause 128, page 87, line 10, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— 
 '(c) is a person to whom the seller has indicated that he is not prepared to sell the property.'. 
No. 392, in 
clause 128, page 87, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(d) presents a threat to the security or privacy of the seller.'.

Sydney Chapman: The eagle-eyed will realise that amendment No. 426 is so far the only one to which I have appended my name. The Minister has already anticipated the amendment, and has therefore shot my fox. This is the first time in my parliamentary career that I have been answered before I have put the question.
 I shall not hope for my Warholian 15 minutes of fame, but cut my contribution down to about one and a half minutes. However, there are one or two points still to be made. I draw the Minister's attention to Clause 128(4)(a): the duty does not apply if the responsible person believes that the person making the request 
''is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question''. 
I have been told that I am not the best dressed man in Parliament. [Hon. Members: ''No!''] Most hon. Members dress up to be noticed; my policy is to dress down to conceal my wealth. That raises the question of how on earth someone can judge that a person calling at his door is unlikely to have sufficient means to buy the property in question. It is at best a subjective judgment. It is a dangerous one to make. 
 Paragraph (b) states that the person 
''is not genuinely interested in buying a property''. 
I do not understand how a person selling a property can make such a judgment. The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to a member of the press or the media calling at a property to publicise its details. I would recognise Mr. Andrew Marr if he knocked at my door, but I would not necessarily recognise a person from the local or national press. 
 Paragraph (c) states: 
''not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property.'' 
Again, I honestly do not know what that means. I accept that subsection (4) then states:
 ''Nothing in this subsection authorises the doing of anything which constitutes an unlawful act of discrimination.'' 
We have legislation on the statute book that deals with sex, race—that includes colour—age and disability discrimination. Surely those matters would cover most issues in any case, although perhaps not sartorial discrimination. The more I consider the subsection, the more I believe that either it would be impossible to use to any effect or it is meaningless. I have included in the amendment the deletion of subsection (5), because if I were successful in deleting subsection (4) there would be no reason for it. The Minister has alluded to such matters and I want him to give me other information to justify subsection (4).

Matthew Green: The amendment, so ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) as always, has grouped with it our amendments Nos. 352 and 392. Amendment No. 352 would replace the words
''is not a person to whom the seller is likely to be prepared to sell the property''
 with 
''is a person to whom the seller has indicated that he is not prepared to sell the property.'' 
Clause 128(4) gives the agent defences for not handing over a pack. The current wording of subsection (4)(c) is vague, whereas our amendment would make it a clear requirement that the seller must have said that he would not sell to someone before that person could be refused a home information pack. The current words make enforcement of that requirement virtually impossible. Our form of words is tighter than that and I hope that it finds some favour with the Minister. 
 In a sense, our amendment is intended to clarify exactly what is intended. It would not leave the estate agent, who would often be the person involved, in the difficult position of trying to guess whether the person was someone to whom the seller would be prepared to sell the property. That is a little like trying to find a needle in a haystack. The provision would allow the estate agent to refer to the seller and ask him whom it was he was not willing to sell to. The seller might say that he did not want his brother to buy the property because he had been trying to buy it for a long time. We can imagine that set of internal family circumstances. Our amendment would present a tighter form of wording. 
 Amendment No. 392 is an attempt to do what I have touched on earlier in a previous group of amendments. It would add a paragraph (d), which would state: 
''presents a threat to the security or privacy of the seller.'' 
It would give another level of assessment, and make it clearer in the Bill that we are seeking to protect a celebrity, or an MP, from press intrusion. There might be cases in which an estate agent had a suspicion that the person wanted the pack for an illegal activity, such as breaking into the house. If we are going to have this awful piece of legislation, we might as well try to ensure that it works properly. I hope that one or both of our amendments will find favour with the Minister.

Keith Hill: I commend the admirably democratic spirit that now seems to prevail among the official Opposition. A Back Bencher has moved an amendment. That is a splendid development, although I caution my own colleagues—[Laughter.] It is interesting that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that, by some strange development, I had answered his questions before he posed them. I had supposed that he and I were on the same side of the famous digital divide, but we have demonstrated that neither of us needs e-communication because we have ESP in full flow between us.
 Before discussing the amendments, I will focus again on the intentions of the clause. We want potential buyers to be entitled to have a copy of the pack, or part of the pack, if they want it and are prepared to pay any reasonable fee for the copying cost. That is the purpose of the clause. The fact is that potential buyers will often want to show a copy to their legal representative or look at the contents at their leisure. That is fair enough, but we can foresee situations in which the seller or his agent should be able to turn down such requests for copies without breaching the home information pack obligations. Subsection (4) sets out the three possible circumstances in which the duty to supply a pack may not apply. I have gone over those circumstances in a good deal of detail already, and I do not propose to go over them again. 
 Let me turn to amendment No. 426, which was moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I have to say at the outset that the rights that are set out in subsection (4) are rights that already exist in the law. Nothing is added to those rights, subject to the anti-discrimination legislation that supervenes in such cases. 
 The hon. Gentleman poses a perfectly reasonable question when he asks how the judgment will be made. All that we can say is that we expect an alert and experienced agent to be in a position to make that kind of judgment. It is perfectly clear that, on occasions, the judgment will be wrong, and I dare say that on individual occasions it will be subject to perfectly reasonable representations on the part of the person who has been denied the seller's pack. If failure to supply a pack were to involve a major offence, or reflect a systematic approach on the part of the agent, there are sanctions that could be introduced. Sanctions could be introduced if an agent were responsible for a failure in his duty to provide a pack. A penalty charge notice could be issued or the buyer's cost could be recovered. If there were a major, flagrant abuse, or a pattern of systematic failure, it is possible that the Office of Fair Trading could ultimately require the agent to cease trading. The deployment of such sanctions is unlikely to occur with any frequency, but the backdrop of those sanctions and the knowledge that they can apply create an encouragement for the seller or the agent to behave in a reasonable fashion. 
 Amendment No. 426 would remove subsections (4) and (5). The effect of that would be that the responsible person would have a duty to provide a pack to any potential buyer, even if they believed on reasonable 
 grounds that they could not afford the property, were not generally interested in buying it, or were not someone to whom the seller would be prepared to sell. 
 I am pleased that I had the opportunity to explain the inclusion of those subsections, and let me add a further word on that matter. The Bill is not a charter for discrimination. We would fall foul of human rights legislation if we did not include the clause, or something similar, which allows the seller to withhold a pack from other people to whom they have good reasons to deny access. I would point out that we are providing for rather special circumstances, which I do not expect to arise in the great majority of cases. 
 Amendment No. 352, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow spoke, would remove the right of a seller or their agent not to supply a pack if they believed that the person asking for copies was someone to whom the seller was not prepared to sell the property. It substitutes for that right one that puts a positive requirement on sellers to decide whether to refuse to provide copies of the pack in each individual case. I appreciate—this is becoming a bit of a refrain—the intention behind the amendment, but placing the requirement on the individual seller seems excessive, which is why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is sufficient for the agent to act on more general instructions in most cases.

Matthew Green: Is there not a great danger with the current wording that estate agents will never refuse a sale because it will be very difficult for them to judge who is likely to be refused by the seller? The seller may give specific instructions. I gave the example of where someone says that they do not want a property sold to their brother; we have all probably had people sitting in our surgeries telling stories of how they have fallen out with someone else in the family, which can be quite painful. One can imagine a situation where the matter would be quite clear.
 If the clause is left as it is, estate agents will never refuse a sale because they are trying to make a judgment—to imagine what the seller might think if a person came in front of them. That seems almost impossible to me. It would be the judgment of Solomon for an estate agent.

Keith Hill: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that in the initial discussions about the estate agent taking on the seller's responsibility, it would be entirely natural for the seller—the individual owner—to explain the conditions on which the sale was to be made. It seems a little bureaucratic to require this constant referencing to and fro. After all, in such circumstances, one does have to rely on the experience of the estate agent in making judgments. I presume that it is not merely the administrative ease or the marketing facility that the estate agent affords the seller but the judgment of the estate agent that is of benefit to the seller. To include the provision suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be a little bureaucratic and excessive in all the circumstances. It cuts me to the quick, but I fear that I must reject that amendment.
 Amendment No. 392 would include a new paragraph under subsection (4), allowing the responsible person to refuse to comply with the request for a home information pack if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person making the request 
''presents a threat to the security or privacy of the seller.'' 
The Bill includes provisions to protect the seller's privacy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his eyes torwards clause 140, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations 
''restricting the disclosure, and use which may be made, of'' 
information in the pack. I assure the Committee that we fully intend to use that provision. Nothing in the home condition report or the pack gives explicit or implicit details of the security of the property. For example, there will be no details of the burglar alarm—if there is one—or of any other security measure taken in the property. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow feels that I have given a reasonable response to his probing amendments and that he will not press them.

Matthew Green: Obviously, it is for the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to speak to the lead amendment, but I find the Minister's words reassuring, particularly on amendment No. 392, which is about security and privacy. Looking at clause 140, which should be retitled the Beckingham palace clause, I am happy as long as what the Minister has said is true. It is probably more suitable for the Government to bring forward regulations covering such issues. Having extracted from the Minister what he intends to do, I am more than happy for things to progress.

Peter Pike: Order. Only one amendment has been moved, and that is No. 426. Amendments Nos. 352 and 392 have been debated, but have not been moved.

Sydney Chapman: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and as usual I am partially but not completely reassured. We all like to use French phrases; subsection (4) gives carte blanche to the responsible person. It would still be better if subsections (4) and (5) were removed, but I accept that we have very important things to discuss, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 353, in
clause 128, page 87, line 36, at end add—
 '(10) All the documents and information contained in the home information pack shall be confidential to the seller, the person acting on his behalf as an estate agent, a person acting on his behalf as a solicitor or conveyancer, and any bona fide buyer or potential buyer.'.
 The amendment would add a new subsection (10). I know what the Minister will say: he will say that clause 140, the Beckingham palace clause, will protect against the need for the amendment. However, I would like the Minister to touch on why the Bill is worded differently 
 from the Land Registration Act 2002, which I understand contains provisions that enable a landowner to keep information confidential. I wonder why, in the space of two years, there has been a difference in the approach taken in legislation. If there is a good reason for the difference, I am sure that the Committee will be only too happy to hear it from the Minister. I should like some clarification. I shall spin my words out while inspiration wends its way to the Minister, if that is necessary.

Sydney Chapman: The amendment is eminently sensible. It tries to restrict the information, which is sensitive, to the limited number of proper and fit people who should know it.
 Since this morning, I have been desperately trying to inform myself about the internet and—I have forgotten what ''e'' stands for—electronic communication. I make a point in all seriousness. From my learning over lunch, I understand that if something goes on the internet, it goes out to everyone. I wonder whether it is a good thing to have a home information pack on an electronic system that broadcasts to the whole world and his dog information that, surely, should be confined to the relevant people.

Keith Hill: I believe that I can allay the concerns of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. It is perfectly true, of course, that some information that appears on the internet is for public consumption. However, let me reassure him—I am no expert on these matters myself and am more on his side of the famous divide than on the other—that the circumstances that we are discussing are essentially those in which pieces of information are e-mailed across the ether to individual recipients and, to that extent, normally do not become available to the general public.
 It is necessary to dispel any possible concerns about these important issues. One senses that the wrong message could be taken up and register in the public consciousness. To avoid that, I shall endeavour to provide an answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow on the Land Registration Act 2002. 
 Amendment No. 353 raises the important matter of confidentiality. We recognise that there are circumstances in which a seller would not want information about their property to be disclosed to people outside the home buying and selling process. Generally, there is unlikely to be anything in the home information pack that would cause problems if disclosed. One wonders sometimes what the point is of having a Parliamentary Private Secretary, especially one with a smoking habit. However, the job has been done. The Ipswich cavalry hoves into view over the horizon to come to the rescue—excellent. 
 Clause 133 restricts the content of the pack to information about the property. Information of a personal nature about the seller cannot be prescribed for inclusion in the pack. Also, the information contained in the home condition report will relate specifically to the condition of the property and its energy efficiency. It will not contain sensitive information—for example, about security or even 
 about the way in which the property is furnished. Even so, as the reasoning behind the amendment illustrates, information in the pack could be obtained and used for purposes that have nothing to do with the sale or purchase of the property and that offend the seller. 
 Two possible examples spring to mind. One is that of double glazing salesmen getting hold of a home condition report for the purpose of identifying potential business opportunities, and then bombarding those properties with sales literature. Even more intrusive would be the situation that we have already debated in which, for example, a journalist might seek to use the pack to obtain information for publication about the home of a public figure. We must ensure that the Bill addresses those serious issues and that it complies with human rights legislation. I believe that it does.

John Hayes: There is a great deal of sense in what the Minister has said, but there seems to be a third element as well—a rather less direct and obvious security aspect. The Minister said that burglar alarms would not be detailed, but double glazing is a security issue, as is the layout of the property, including the points of exit and entry. No burglar will ever have to case a joint again if he has one of these home information packs.

Keith Hill: I know that the hon. Gentleman arrived late for understandable reasons, but he was here during our last exchanges on the provisions that empower the seller or his agent to make a judgment about withholding home information packs and home condition reports. One would not expect to see much of the information about the layout of the property, which might provide the opportunity to case a joint, included in those details. However, there is a risk that a home condition report could fall into the wrong hands, just as under the present arrangements there is ample risk that the same situation could prevail. I do not think that we are addressing an issue that is a special consequence of the provisions of the home information pack. Let me explain briefly why I believe that the Bill addresses the concerns that have been expressed and complies with human rights legislation.
 Clause 128(4) ensures that sellers and their agents do not have to give copies of the pack, or any document in it, to anyone who is not genuinely interested in buying the property, or someone to whom the seller would be prepared to sell it. We have discussed that. Furthermore, as I have already said, clause 140 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations restricting the disclosure and use of pack information. 
 I thank the hon. Member for Ludlow again for the amendment, which is helpful in identifying key people who need access to the home information pack. I reassure him that we will certainly bear that in mind in considering how regulations under clause 140 might best be framed. However, there are all sorts of scenarios in which other people will want legitimate access to that information. For example, a potential buyer might want to show the home condition report to a builder or, in the case of the hon. Member for 
 Ludlow, an architect who is a member of the family. Enforcement authorities will need to have access to that information in the course of their investigation of any case. 
 Clauses 128 and 140 provide strong safeguards that will give sellers the protection that they need. In the light of those reassurances, plus my final announcement on the Land Registration Act 2002—that we need to think about it and write to the hon. Gentleman in due course—I conclude my response to this short but important debate.

Matthew Green: I suspect that we may have covered this area sufficiently. The Minister has given several reassurances about what may be contained in regulations that may be made under clause 140. Those reassurances are enough. I await with interest his response to the hand-grenade that I tossed him on the 2002 Act. I will not hold back from withdrawing it while I wait, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give us a little more explanation on the shelf-life of the home information packs under clause 128, because we have not had much from him so far? The excellent House of Commons Library guide to the Bill states:
 ''It is proposed to require that the HCR in the home information pack should not be more than three months old at the time the property is first marketed.'' 
Indeed, several professionals, lawyers, surveyors, estate agents and others have said that it would be irresponsible to recommend a purchaser to rely on an outdated report. Local authority search information is date sensitive and might have to be renewed, too. The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned the earlier instance when major development or planning changes could fundamentally change the nature of the property that is up for sale. 
 We have heard a few personal anecdotes. Not so long ago, I took more than a year to sell a property. That was not because there was anything wrong with it or any defects were found, but because it was just a flat time in the market. Does that mean that I would have had to provide three or four home condition reports, which would have had to be updated, giving rise to additional costs and administrative activity throughout the year that I was trying to sell the property? 
 It is a serious issue. Let us consider the position of someone who has to leave an area because of his work and who has to put his house on the market and move to another part of the country. If that person has been unable to sell his property, he may have a bridging loan, which costs a lot of money. The expenses that that person would have to undergo during that year would be extremely significant. As a Committee, we are owed a serious explanation from the Minister about shelf-life.

Keith Hill: May I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for referring to the shelf-life of the HIPs and, I suppose, the home condition report in particular? Frankly, I am surprised that the matter has not emerged in our proceedings before now. It is vital that we discuss it. I put on the record the Government's understanding of such matters.
 Common sense suggests that the home condition report should be up to date. Let me put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in most cases, the key aspects of the physical condition of a property are not likely to change rapidly. I am glad that I have his sedentary and unspoken assent to that matter. I am sure that we can all think of exceptional circumstances in which that would not be the case. For example, let us suppose that the property was subject to a lightning strike or a flood. We would expect that to affect its condition. It is precisely because the central elements of the condition of the property are unlikely to change with great rapidity that we are not putting in the Bill a requirement for a periodic updating of the home condition report. The hon. Gentleman has graphically described the disadvantages of a requirement that it should be changed quarterly. 
 I want to say something further about the matter. I hope that it will be of assurance and of interest to the hon. Gentleman, to the Committee at large and to those outside the House who so avidly follow our deliberations. Sellers will not be required to update the home information pack when the property has been on the market for some time. The truth is that the only items that are likely to be time sensitive are the search results and the home condition report. We are not requiring sellers to renew them. 
 What about local searches? Search results are usually accepted for up to six months. Online search information—as ever, I turn to my e-guru, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), at this moment—will allow anyone to update these quickly and economically if they wish. The National Land Information Service will provide that facility. We understand that private search companies will offer a similar service for personal searches. 
 As with any survey, the home condition report will provide a snapshot of the property on the day that it was inspected. However, as it will not contain a valuation, it should generally be valid for quite some time, unless circumstances such as those that I have described—lightning impact or flooding—arise after the inspection. 
 I turn again for reassurance on these matters to the saintly Maria Coleman of Bristol—[Interruption.] In her evidence to the Select Committee she said that the survey provided as part of her scheme can be updated. I draw that to the attention of the Committee, as it is an important observation. I am surprised that there was banter or chat when that saintly name was being invoked.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I cannot speak his name in the same breath as that of Maria Coleman. In her evidence to the Select Committee, she said that the survey provided as part of her scheme can be updated at no extra cost, and I believe that the market is likely to respond in a similar way when a compulsory scheme is introduced. She said:
 ''If you are a buyer and you pay to have a survey done today, if there are storms tomorrow it is out-of-date within a week. The way we have tackled it is we have said to our surveyor, 'Will you please give us a scale of fees of how much you are going to charge us and on every single fee add £10 or £15 because you may have to reinspect one in four or one in five and we do not want to have to go back either to our vendor or the purchaser. So would you please add that to your fees and understand that you will have to go back and reinspect and update your report.' The report stays the same but an addendum is put on the back. The report is never changed, it is just updated. There is a company at the moment called One Search Direct and they do searches throughout the whole country for £100 including VAT and they are saying that they will update searches for £10.'' 
Let me add a further word that may be of interest and offer reassurance. We know that there is already significant interest from lenders and other organisations in the opportunities presented by home information packs. It is an open secret that many of them are considering providing packs as a service for their borrowers. Those organisations have a large existing client base. In much the same way as lenders already offer discounted mortgages and cash-backs, they could in future offer free or heavily discounted packs as an incentive to attract and retain business. Therefore, it might not be too long before we receive with our annual mortgage statement an offer to provide a pack should we want to move home, and an offer to attach to the pack a guaranteed mortgage for any interested buyer subject to status. It is not difficult to see how that sort of initiative could remove any fears about financial impediments to marketing homes with a pack. 
 I have sought to deal with two concerns, which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire properly raised: the time period in which the pack will remain valid, and cost. I hope that in my concluding remarks I have given him food for thought and reassurance.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: How can I possibly resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman now?

Matthew Green: I think I heard the Minister almost encourage mortgage lenders to be providers of the packs. That is exactly the form of vertical integration of the provision of these services that the Americans have taken great care to avoid. One of the great concerns is that, rather than being protected, the consumer will be taken advantage of, with lawyers, mortgage lenders, surveyors and estate agents joining together in a vertically integrated group. They might then offer so-called discounts, which would keep all matters in-house, so the ability to keep down prices through competition would just not be there. The Minister has just made a very revealing comment.

Keith Hill: The Minister may have made a very revealing comment, but he will certainly not follow the hon. Gentleman down his path of fantasies and speculation on vertical integration, which, to be frank, is likely to induce a feeling of horizontal disintegration in the Committee. I hear what he says but I hope that he will have the common sense to withdraw his amendment.

Peter Pike: There is no amendment. We are discussing clause stand part. I have allowed the debate to proceed even though the clause makes no reference to the subject under discussion. I have been fairly lenient because I could not see anywhere else in the Bill where the issue could have been raised, but I do not want it to go on too long.

John Hayes: I noticed your leniency, Mr. Pike, and it confirmed all the best things that I already knew about you. The Minister and you have rightly said that the matter is important and that there is no convenient place to debate it other than at this juncture.
 I do not understand all that the Minister has said. He seemed to suggest in his earlier response to the quite proper inquiries of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire that the packs will not be time-limited. If they are not to be time-limited at all, one wonders what value they would ultimately have. He added that they can be updated with a small additional charge, but he did not say that there was any obligation to do so. We remain to see whether he corrects that statement. 
 We are left with the feeling that packs will initially be obligatory, but that they will last for ever, to be updated only at the behest of the individual according to local circumstances of cost and quality. That is a less than convincing argument in response to my hon. Friend. Like him, I am concerned that if they were too tightly time-limited, a seller who took a long time to sell their property might, through no fault of their own, be faced with the cost of several packs. I am equally concerned that a seller who did not have any obligation to update their pack might offer their property on the basis of information that was compiled perhaps nine or 12 months previously, so, the use of the pack would be somewhat limited. 
 That is particularly true in circumstances of rapid change. The Minister highlighted some of the problems, but there are others. If a property were in an area that had previously been mined for either coal or tin, it is quite possible, given that mining searches are unlikely to form a fundamental part of the pack, that there will be significant changes. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that searches for coal and tin mining will form a key part of the pack. There may be gaseous emissions from landfill sites and all sorts of other circumstances in which changes could occur rapidly. Therefore a pack's life is likely to be rather shorter than the Minister implies. I am unclear about his intentions, but I happily give way to the hon. Member for Ludlow, who will no doubt tell us what they are doing in Ludlow.

Matthew Green: I was not planning to. The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point when he notes the circumstances in which the sale goes through nine or 12 months after the pack's compilation. Two possibilities come to mind. If the seller does not have to update the pack and the buyer buys the property on the basis of that pack, but something has happened in the intervening time, where is the legal redress and who carries the indemnity? Alternatively, will buyers faced with a pack that is 12 months old pay for the searches to be done again because the pack is not up to date, thus giving rise to the problem that we highlighted earlier of buyers paying for work to be done because they do not trust the information in the pack?

John Hayes: Once the buyer has overcome the hurdle of being adequately suited and booted to obtain a pack in the first place—the Minister made it clear that riff-raff will not have access to the packs—they may become suspicious about its contents if it is old. A buyer may say that it is not good enough and that they want a new pack. We do not understand from what the Minister told us where the legal obligation will lie. Will the seller and their agent be obliged to provide an up-to-date pack? We have not been told that today and the Minister must be much clearer in his response to the proper questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire. I am even more sceptical about the packs now than I was before the Minister rose.

Andrew Selous: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the possible scope for conflict of interest if the inspectors are employees of the selling agents or associated companies. I am worried about that. At the moment, buyers rely on professionals who have a duty of care towards them. It strikes me that there is cause for concern if reports are produced by employees of the estate agent who is selling the property. Does my hon. Friend agree?

John Hayes: The Minister was dismissive of that point. We know that new Labour, of which the Minister is the very personification, is attracted by the glitz and glamour of big money. The commercial bright lights may be blinding the Minister to the danger of the American experience, which I highlighted and to which the hon. Member for Ludlow and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred. There are real issues about estate agents who are also valuers and mortgage companies that are also inspectors—issues on which the industry itself is anxious to have clarification. We are not accusing the various sectors of the industry: they want absolute clarity from the Government about how it should properly operate in the new circumstances.
Matthew Green rose—

John Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Pike: Before I call the hon. Member for Ludlow, I ask the Committee to speak to the clause that we are debating. I have allowed a lot of flexibility
 because we did not discuss at length the amendment relating to a point that hon. Members now view as one of great importance.

Matthew Green: The issue arose in connection with the duty to provide a copy of the information pack on request because it relates to vertically integrated companies and their duty to provide a pack. My concern is that, if we have vertical integration, a couple of years after the new system comes into operation, Members of Parliament will be jumping up and down in the House and demanding Office of Fair Trading reports on the way in which the business is being conducted. That would have a knock-on effect on the clause and the duty to provide the copy.

John Hayes: I am ever mindful of the undesirability of being diverted up a tributary when you want us to stay on the main course, Mr. Pike, but there is considerable concern about some of the commercial aspects. More significant even than that is the lack of clarity about the precise life of the packs, their usefulness, the legal obligation to update them, the responsibility of the seller and the rights of the buyer in that regard, and the role of the companies that have emerged from the ether this afternoon and will have a crucial role in updating packs. We hear from the St. Theresa of Bristol that all sorts of exciting and, presumably, equally saintly organisations will update the packs for a snippet. Well, that is the first that we have heard of them, and, as I see it, they have no defined role in the Bill.
 We would like to hear a little more from the Minister about the role of updaters, what their legal constraints will be and what the relationship between them and the other parties to the process will be. The Minister has served up a dreadful dog's dinner to the Committee. The least he will have to give us before we are prepared to accept the clause is a more palatable desert.

Chris Mole: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is, perhaps, going to give us some coffee and cheese afterwards.

Chris Mole: The hon. Gentleman suggests that this is the first time that these issues have been raised, but if he had read the Select Committee report and the Government's response to it, he would be aware of the view that setting the framework in legislation will allow the market to respond. I have no idea why he expects the Minister to be able to tell him what the nature and future of businesses will be. It will be up to the market to develop the best, most effective and cheapest responses.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Select Committee highlighted that point and that the Government responded. However, as I said, this is the first time that it has come up in the deliberations on the
 Bill in this Committee. The constraints that will operate in relation to those activities are important. I know that he, like many in his party, is starry-eyed about the power and value of the market, but if he is suggesting that there should be no constraints, control or accountability for the process and that anyone should be allowed to set up a business and update packs for a fee that they think is appropriate, his view is rather different from mine, and his is certainly not a view that is supported by the rest of the proposed legislation, which provides parameters in which the new system should operate.
 Those parameters seem to be changing constantly, because when challenged by astute members of the Committee, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, the Minister is at a loss to explain precisely how the system will work in practice. Unless we hear that at the end of this short debate—I can see from your face, Mr. Pike, that you wish that it had been even shorter—it will be difficult for the Committee to agree to the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129 - Duty to ensure authenticity of documents in other situations

Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 407, in
clause 129, page 87, line 41, after 'duty', insert
'to take all reasonable care'.
 We are still on home information packs—[Laughter.] That amendment is designed to insert the phrase ''all reasonable care'' rather than to have ''a duty'' as the Bill states. Duty is quite a strong word, and a number of people are concerned that holding the responsible person to a duty might constrain the operation of the market. At the moment, it is not unusual to have two, or sometimes more, estate agents marketing a single property. Presumably, if that continues to be the practice, they will not all produce their own home information packs. Only one pack would need to be produced—although it would not necessarily be used by more than one company. Otherwise, there would be a duplication of the packs. If different estate agents were marketing a single property it would be sensible to use the same pack, because it would be about the same property. Therefore, if one responsible person, for example, estate agent A, commissioned the home information pack—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike: Order. Do we know what the noise is outside? I am sorry to interrupt, but it is pretty distracting, and I am sure that Hansard finds it distracting.

Robert Syms: Thank you, Mr. Pike.
 Inevitably, if estate agent A commissioned a home information pack, it would be sensible for estate agents B and C, who are also marketing a property, to use the 
 same pack. To some extent, estate agents B and C would have to trust estate agent A that the HIP that A produced was a proper and fair reflection of the property. In order to fulfil their ''duty'' must each estate agent go through the HIP checking each document, or can they ''take all reasonable care'' and trust the individual who assembled the pack, and thus enable business to proceed swiftly? 
 There may be people who set up in business to prepare home information packs and market their service as efficient purveyors of packs to estate agents. A lot of business is done based on a degree of trust, and an estate agent might wish to trust a concern that produced the documents because it has been accurate in the past. However, as the Bill is phrased—using the word ''duty''—the responsible person is the one who gets prosecuted when something goes wrong. Is that a sensible way of doing things, and does it constrain the provision of packs by people other than the responsible person? What duties does the responsible person have to check information with which they have been provided? 
 In addition, a seller might pull a pack together to save money because he does not want to be charged for it, and provide that information to an estate agent, who then becomes the responsible person. What position is the estate agent in at that point? Must the agent double check what the client has provided, and are there any means of checking? 
 In the previous debate, we talked about the difficulty of information being time-sensitive. The one thing in the pack that is time-sensitive is the home condition report section. Will there be an imprint on a HIP so we know who put it together? Will there be a system of dating or numbering so that from where the information has been drawn and who has provided it can be traced? The Bill puts the emphasis on the responsible person who has the ''duty'', yet for the market to work—a phrase used by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole)—it is quite possible that there will have to be a degree of subcontracting to produce the documents. 
 Is ''duty'' too strong a word, and is ''all reasonable care'' a better phrase for the way in which the business will operate? What will happen in some of the circumstances that I have outlined, where there are multiple estate agents, or the seller has produced the information, or companies are set up to subcontract and they are producing documentation? Should there be some system of imprinting, dating or numbering so that there can be a paper trail back to the person who has provided the information? If there were such a system, when cases come to the courts, as at some point they will, the full weight would not fall on an estate agents who may reasonably have trusted what they thought were reputable organisations to provide information.

Matthew Green: I rise to support the amendment, which is reasonable in that it is designed to clarify with whom exactly the buck stops. The hon. Gentleman has done the Committee, and possibly the Government, a favour in trying to clarify that.
 Two sets of circumstances make the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) pertinent. One is, as he has said, the situation in which an estate agent takes on a company to make the pack and it does so badly. The liability appears to rest with the estate agent. If a court case was brought, would the estate agent have to pursue that company for recompense? What if the company had gone bust? Does the buck stop at the estate agent? 
 I am horrified that I had not thought of the second set of circumstances, and the hon. Gentleman has done a good job of explaining it to the Committee. It relates to what happens if there are multiple estate agents. Many people choose to market their property with more than one estate agent. I can see a situation where there is vertical integration, to use that horrible phrase again. The estate agent says ''We will give you a discount on the pack as long as we are the sole estate agent, and it will cost you 10 per cent. less,'' or something like that. I can see the market closing down as a result of the introduction of seller's packs. If someone goes to more than one estate agent, do they have to pay for more than one seller's pack? If not, does one estate agent take responsibility for the accuracy of the pack, while the others simply piggyback on it? 
 The hon. Member for Poole has opened up a Pandora's box of possibilities for where the liability stops. The words of the amendment could make it difficult for a person to seek recompense, because the agent could say, ''I took all reasonable care,'' when the home owner suddenly discovers that he has bought a pig in a poke and cannot recover his money. That is a concern too. 
 The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a huge grey area that the Government need to clarify. If the Minister cannot do so today, perhaps he will do so in writing. A few circumstances have been mentioned, but there could be a number of others in which the question of with whom the buck stops could be debateable. I ask the Minister to go away and consider the question of liability and the situation where there is more than one estate agent. I hope that he can shed a little light on what seems to be very gloomy.

Sydney Chapman: Rather than try to speak to clause stand part, I rise to make a point that is tangential to the amendment. I have read the clause carefully and I do not see the point of it or why it is necessary. It is entitled, ''Duty to ensure authenticity of documents in other situations''. I should like to know what ''other situations'' are.
 Secondly, I query the word ''authentic'' and wonder whether the word ''accurate'' should have been used. I am not an etymologist, but my understanding of the word ''authentic'' is that it must be the actual document: only that can be the authentic document. Therefore, whatever the purpose of the clause—I fail to understand what it is—to be helpful to the seller and the buyer, the document, documents or home information pack should be accurate. That is the more important word to use than ''authentic''.

John Hayes: The three points of concern are compilation, verification and advice. In the case of a private survey commissioned by a buyer under the existing regime, all three are provided by a single, authoritative source. The problem with the new regime is that they may not be available from a single source—indeed, that may not even be desirable. One group of people will compile information, but may be competent neither to verify it, nor to advise on it, yet I suspect that that demand will naturally be placed on them. Therefore, we need absolute clarity about those three responsibilities and the way in which they interact with the Bill and the home information pack regime.

Keith Hill: The Committee has made painfully slow progress in its consideration of part 5, but I believe that we have now dealt with all the major issues relating to home information packs, with one exception—the treatment of low-value, low-demand properties, on which, as I explicitly said in my introduction to part 5, I am looking forward to hearing the opinions of members of the Committee. I hope that we shall come to that in due course. I am delighted that, notwithstanding our desperately slow progress through the clauses, we have been able to debate all the major issues, as I am sure will be acknowledged in this and other places.
 The Committee has already dealt at considerable length with legal redress. It has touched on indemnity on more than one occasion, but I hope that it will be possible to deal with it in a little more detail on later amendments. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Keith Hill: Let me endeavour to answer two or three of the questions raised.
 Yes, we expect the dates and sources of documents to be included in the home information pack. If two agents were marketing the same property, each would need to have a pack, but the packs would not have to be commissioned separately. Each agent would have to ensure that the pack complied with the requirements of the regulations made under clause 133, but checking would not extend to the accuracy of the information provided, for example, by the local authority in its searches, or by the home inspector in the home condition report. However, each document in the pack will be the responsibility of its provider; for example, the local authority will be responsible for searches. If there are problems with a document, recourse would be to its provider and not to the estate agent. 
 I thank the hon. Member for Poole for his amendment, to which he alluded in passing. I think that I understand why it was tabled. If we want the packs to have any value, the information they contain must be authentic. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked what an authentic document is and why the word ''authentic'' rather than ''accurate'' is used. 
 The answer is that the duty is to ensure that authentic documents are in the pack, that the local search in the pack really is a local search and that the home condition report is indeed a home condition report. However, the responsibility for the accuracy of the document lies with its provider. 
 The hon. Member for Poole moved that the words 
''to take all reasonable care''
 should be inserted into the clause. We do not believe it necessary to import those words. A trading standards officer will not serve a penalty charge notice on someone who has taken care to ensure the authenticity of a pack's contents; it would be most unreasonable to do so, and there is already provision in the Bill making that clear. Paragraph 8(3) of schedule 7 provides that there is a ground of appeal against the service of a penalty charge notice if 
''in the circumstances of the case it was inappropriate for the notice to be given to the recipient.'' 
In light of all those explanations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Robert Syms: I thank the Minister for his explanation, which helps a little. We may have to return to the matter a little later, perhaps on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131 - Residential properties not available with vacant possession

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 354, in
clause 131, page 89, line 4, after 'possession' insert
'or to properties in areas of low housing demand'.
 Some hon. Members may be surprised to see me here; I am slightly surprised to see myself here. I was at the Standing Committee on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill earlier, so I have come out of the fire and into the frying pan.

Chris Ruane: I thought it was good.

Richard Younger-Ross: I will not give up the day job.

Chris Ruane: I thought you already had.

Richard Younger-Ross: Amendment No. 354 deals with houses in an area of low demand. There are already provisions for special stamp duty exemptions, which apply to some disadvantaged areas. The aim of the amendment is to allow the Secretary of State through regulations to take account of properties of low value in those areas of low demand. The area in which I reside in South Devon has the reverse problem—high demand and high prices— but I am aware of parts of the country, particularly Newcastle
 where my in-laws live, where there are properties of low value in low-demand areas and it is difficult to get a turnout.
 I know that the cost of a pack is meant to be £600, but it could be more; we do not know exactly how the costings will work out. The best estimate lowest cost on a low-value property will be a substantial investment to people on low incomes in low-value properties.

Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman say what his sense is about people on low incomes whose properties may have profound hidden defects? For example, the front hall might not be tied in to the rest of the building. How are they going to receive the type of protection that the home information packs should afford them? I appreciate the point about costs.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Lady makes a good point about the pack as it is proposed, but if property were supplied in a low-cost area now, it would be a case of let the buyer beware. We may have to have an exemption whereby people have to go back to the old system of surveying the property for defects. The properties of which we are speaking are often not properties with walls that are bowing or falling out, but perfectly sound properties on new estates that are in need of some repair. They may be in need of insulation or there may be ventilation problems causing condensation and damp. Those are not problems that could not be dealt with by a conventional survey. The problems can be circumvented, but if the hon. Lady insists that we go down the road of having packs I fear that we will be locking people into an area of deprivation and we will stop them from being able to get out.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the disproportionate impact the packs will have on low-demand areas and, as a consequence, on the rest of the country, because there will be a concentration of demand in certain areas. Three points occur to me that he needs to clarify. First, how much would the amendment exacerbate the problem by stigmatising certain properties? In other words, a property without a pack will be seen automatically as ''disadvantaged'' and is unlikely to be attractive to purchasers. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said, that the people who most need the packs would not receive one under such an arrangement—although, as I said, I am not unsympathetic to the principle? Thirdly, what about the definition of disadvantage? Will it be defined simply in terms of low demand, or are there other ways in which one would define it? It is not clear from the amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes three good points. I am not saying that our proposal is without problems. I hope that from this debate we may be able to explore them and see where we may be able to go forward. Any suggestions from either Conservative or Government Members would be
 appreciated. Perhaps we will find that when the Minister responds there are ways in which we will be able to go further forward.
 The hon. Gentleman raised three points in one intervention, so I must have been very generous. He mentioned stigmatising certain areas, which is a danger, albeit one that might be exaggerated and that depends on the size of the area affected. The advantage, however, is that we would allow people to get out of the area in which they live, so that they could perhaps sell their properties a little faster. That might bring a little more money into the area, allowing people to do up those properties and move forwards. 
Mr. Syms rose—

Richard Younger-Ross: May I finish my point? The hon. Gentleman has made three points; when I have finished, I will happily give way to him.
 The question is how we move those people living in low-cost, deprived areas forward. That is what we are trying to do through the amendment. In the case of a person who senses a stigma about an area being low value, I would expect that that stigma exists because of the nature of the estate that they live on. In Newcastle, people know the areas where the deprived streets—those with the problems—are. People do not need to pay for a home information pack to know that those are the low-value streets where there are difficulties. To be honest, if the properties were popular, people would be moving into them. The fact that people are not moving into them is part of the problem, for other reasons that might have to do with that estate. 
 Clearly, there are other things that have to be done by local authorities to raise the standard of estates and deal with deprivation, particularly in inner cities, and those are not matters for the amendment. I think that one helps to create demand by making it easier for people to sell a property. I would argue that the amendment would go some way towards ensuring that. The hon. Gentleman made a point about disadvantage that I did not quite get. I do not know whether he wants to remind me about that point.

John Hayes: The amendment speaks about identifying areas of disadvantage; I wondered how the hon. Gentleman defined that. Did he do so simply in terms of low demand, or did he have other things in mind?

Richard Younger-Ross: We have not specified the exact definition; that would be a matter for the Under-Secretary in the infinite wisdom that I am sure she will show. Obviously, there are ways of dealing with the issue: one way to measure disadvantage in housing terms would be to look at the value of the property as a multiplier of the average income for an area; another would be to consider the percentage of people on benefits in relation to the value of property. We could also look at turnover, as we are talking about areas of low demand, or we could consider the number of empty properties on an estate. The last is probably a better indicator than any of the others I mentioned.

Robert Syms: There is one practical difficulty with areas of low demand. In the case of a £1 million property in London, it is probably inevitable that the money for the pack will be collected at the completion of the sale, when there are sufficient moneys to do that. For an estate agent marketing a property in a part of Newcastle such as one of those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there would be a tremendous temptation to ask for the £600, £700 or £800 up front. The sort of person who wanted to sell their property there might not be able to afford to put up that kind of money. The pack might then become a barrier to selling, rather than an aid.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman emphasises a point that I made earlier. Putting the emphasis on money up front is a way of preventing people from putting their property on the market, because they cannot afford the £600 for the pack. That is a serious problem. If people are locked into an estate, it creates a spiral of decline, rather than the growing affluence that we hope for. I hope that the Under-Secretary will look at the amendment kindly.

Clive Betts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although he says that Ministers will decide the matter by regulation, he has in effect already determined that they will have to come up with a definition that applies to low housing demand? In fact, clause 132 already gives effective powers to the Minister to make exemptions by regulations, according to low housing demand, or according to price, as the Select Committee suggested. There is still a bit more work to be done on that. We should consider the issue and not be as prescriptive as he has been in his amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross: I take the hon. Gentleman's points, which are valid. I will wait for the Minister's response before deciding whether we wish to pursue the matter further. I wait to be enlightened.

Brian Iddon: It is pretty obvious that the term ''low demand'' is relative and means different things in different parts of the country. At one time there were areas of relatively low demand in London, but they became fashionable as film stars moved in, or for other reasons, and the market took off. The meaning of low demand is different in the north of England, as you know, Mr. Pike—and as I know, because I represent a Bolton constituency. There are 22,000 unfit properties in Bolton. The only way to bring the demand back into such areas is to bring them up to fitness standard. The Bill will help us to do that when it is enacted, and I welcome it in that respect. I spoke about that on Second Reading.
 It would be unfair to charge people £500 or £600 for selling a house worth £5,000 or £6,000 when other people are selling properties worth millions, or even hundreds of thousands. I have thought about that matter a bit more seriously since Second Reading. This 
 is a tricky debate, and it is not easy to make a decision. I am sat on the fence, marginally in favour of letting HIPs go forward and seeing what happens. 
 I am, however, concerned about the amount of research that we have done. Since Second Reading a report containing research by SPARK Research Ltd. for the Government has winged its way to me. I notice that the report's summary shows that there were only 42 respondents to that consultation, which is an extremely low number. Only 13 of those responses were from local authorities. Fortunately, one of those responses came from my authority, Bolton metropolitan borough council—although I did not realise it had responded and I had not read what it said until this document winged its way into my hands. However, few of the responses address the problem. The research that the Government have done so far is not a good pointer to the direction in which the Committee should proceed.

Andrew Selous: The Minister told us earlier today that the price of the home information pack would not vary according to the costs of the property. We were talking about £1 million seafront houses in Poole, which would be subject to the same charge as other properties in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. I wonder whether a solution might be for the costs of the pack to be related in some way to the price, but with a cap at either end—I say that hurriedly to reassure my hon. Friend with the £1-million waterfront houses in his constituency. There should be an upper limit, because it would be unfair to charge thousands of pounds for a piece of work that has not taken much time, just because a property is valuable. If we could introduce a range with an upper and lower limit, that might go some way towards addressing the issue that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is raising. That would be fairer for people in much cheaper properties—the houses worth £5,000 or £6,000 about which he is talking—and would not cause undue concern to my hon. Friend's constituents.

Brian Iddon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are all kinds of ways to get round the problem: five of them are quoted in the report I mentioned earlier. However, the one that is ruled out by the consultation document has to do with abandoning the need for the HIP requirement on low-demand properties, for some of the reasons that have already been stated. I have seen red-lining work in my local authority, and it is devastating. When building societies, or other lenders stop lending in an area, they never admit that they red-line it, but it is pretty obvious, because when people go to different building societies to try to get a mortgage in those areas they cannot get one. It is clear that the area is red-lined, although it is not accepted by any authority that it has been red-lined as such. Once an area is red-lined, people vote with their feet; they get out as fast as possible. I have seen that happen in Bolton, and it is one of the main causes of market collapse. Pathfinder areas are beginning to address that problem. I am marginally of the view that we should let the system
 proceed and see what happens in practice, because it is difficult to project what will happen in low-demand areas when HIPs are launched on the market.
 The next clause gives power to provide for further exceptions. I ask the Under-Secretary whether we can allow the system to progress now, closely monitor it, review it after not too long a period, and come back to the issue in future. If the HIP possibility causes difficulties in low-demand areas, the Minister might make an exception along the lines that have been proposed. That is my conclusion at present.

Sydney Chapman: I want to put a point to the hon. Member for Teignbridge on amendment No. 354. It arose from listening to his remarks and those of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Should the hon. Member for Teignbridge not be talking about low housing value rather than ''low housing demand''? There can be low housing demand in high-value areas.

Richard Younger-Ross: The words I used were low-value properties in areas of low demand.

Sydney Chapman: I stand to be corrected, but the hon. Gentleman's amendment only refers to ''low housing demand''. I am saying that it would be better if it referred to low housing value.

John Hayes: A number of concerns have been highlighted in this short debate, and it is worth highlighting one or two particular issues to do with low-demand areas, so the Minister can better reply.
 The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East properly drew attention to the research on the subject, and he is right that it is slight; I think that the Minister would be the first to acknowledge that. In as much as the research tells us anything, it has interesting things to say about the impact of the measure in low-demand areas. That is drawn from the particularly profound understanding of the matter among local authorities. The issue of low demand and low value is highlighted in the research by one of the local authorities that gave evidence, Redcar and Cleveland borough council—I am disappointed that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is not present to hear what her local authority said. It stated that some low values might be a reflection of poor condition as opposed to low demand. Therefore, there may be not just an overlap but a distinction between them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet suggested. It was also argued, particularly by the Bank of Scotland, that it would be useful if the prices of low-value, low-demand properties were expressed as a percentage of the regional average. Those qualifications of the points that the hon. Member for Teignbridge made are important. 
 There were real concerns about that research. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East understated the case a little. It is clear that there were worries on the part of some of the people associated with it about its terms of reference, its scale, and therefore its significance. Stockton-on-Tees borough council, which I do not imagine is the most Tory authority in 
 the universe, voiced surprise at the finding that the pack would lead to a better-functioning market in low-demand areas. It said of the pack: 
 ''They would not assist the market as they would create an onerous obligation on sellers who are already struggling to sell their properties. Sellers would incur higher legal fees from the outset and additional fees to top up the information.'' 
The Law Society has been quoted several times. It expressed concerns, but there are other worries, too, including a worry that the research 
''did not appear to take into account the views of lenders and financial institutions . . . Other possible avenues for improving the conveyancing process were not central to the research''. 
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) drew particular attention to conveyancing. She argued that, in many ways, improving the conveyancing process might be a more useful exercise than focusing our attention and skills on the production of the packs. 
 It was also suggested that the 
''idea of a voluntary pack rather than a compulsory pack was not explored by the research''. 
Finally, it was said that 
''the conclusions could be seen to be potentially flawed because of incorrect assumptions used throughout the research process. For example the assumptions by estate agents that the cost of the pack could be covered by lenders''. 
All those proper question marks hang over the research that has been conducted into the impact of the measures in low-demand areas. Those making such comments were not people with a partisan interest, but people who had a real concern about the importance of reinvigorating the housing market in such places. 
 I do not have a particularly strong view about such matters. I have no prejudice about such an argument. As I started to tease out in my interventions on the speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge, it is difficult to know how we can start to distinguish with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There are worries about what that might lead to in respect of stigmatising or stereotyping a particular part of an area or a whole area. I have some worries about the way through such matters, but there are very real worries about the scale of the charge and its impact on the bottom end of the market. The sum of £550 is not much to someone who is buying a house for £1 million, but it is a lot of money when a person is buying a house or, more especially, selling one that is valued at £50,000, which a number of properties in parts of the country are, strange though that might sound to the high flyers in Westminster and its environs. If people did not sell their property and were saddled with such a bill, it would be a significant amount of money to many people who are selling properties in difficult circumstances. 
 I have real worries about the matter. The Under-Secretary will understand them because they are shared throughout the Committee and more widely. I hope that she will give us a reasoned and thorough account of the Government's perspective and advance a persuasive series of arguments about why there should not be an exception for low-demand areas. Perhaps she will say something about whether there are other ways in which to finance the packs. I make 
 no judgment and the Government may have a view about it, but it has been suggested that the pathfinder project might contribute to that. It has been said that local authorities might take special responsibility in some designated areas for compiling and providing support in making up the packs and distributing them. I have no fixed views about that, but it is important that we think about it and reflect seriously on such suggestions. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us the benefit of her wisdom in such matters.

Brian Iddon: I have seen the suggestion in the document that local authorities should perhaps provide grants to help people to sell houses in the areas under discussion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that would also aid in red-lining areas if local authorities were giving them grants? It would send out the wrong signals, a point that was made in the report.

John Hayes: Yes, that is exactly one of the paradoxes that lie at the heart of this small but important debate about packs in low-demand areas. I do not say that there are simple solutions. I have tried to put a balanced case because I understand the arguments on both sides, which is why I am not dogmatic about my conclusions or the solutions.
 The hon. Gentleman will know that it was suggested in the consultation that local authorities and their partners provide the full service to consumers directly or through a specified agent as a means of supporting what they are doing in the housing marketplace more generally. They typically have a great deal of knowledge of their own locale and might well be able to use it to support this process and deliver it in a more effective way. There may be an enhanced role for local government. I wait to hear what the Under-Secretary says about that.

Richard Younger-Ross: Part of the difficulty is how tightly one defines the area. There is no reason why it should not be far broader than the narrow confines of the area of deprivation. One does not often find that a whole estate is deprived. It is usually a street or some streets in a community or in a city. If the area is defined broadly and the compensation or grant is given on the basis of the cost of the property as sold, red-lining problems would not necessarily apply, as the defined area is far larger than the area of deprivation.

John Hayes: That is a fair argument, except that if one were to marry this proposal with, for example, the market renewal pathfinder initiative, there would have to be some consistency in the measures that were applied. If there is to be a universal obligation that packs should be in place, one would have to be mindful of practicality when defining the exceptions. For example, it would not be acceptable to exempt individual properties or a few properties or parts of streets. That would make it very difficult to manage a process that already will create an ocean of paperwork and that is already an extraordinarily bureaucratic and complex exercise. I understand the hon. Gentleman's
 point, but I am personally concerned, although the responsibility belongs not to me but to the Ministers, that targeting properties in that way might be impractical.
 Incidentally, that is why I tested the hon. Gentleman. With good grace and some style, he failed to answer my questions on his definition of disadvantage and on the confusion between low demand and low value. He was even kinder when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. After all, this is his amendment, not mine.

Clive Betts: Looking back to the discussions of the Select Committee, this was one issue on which we had conflicting evidence. Some people felt that the packs would be a major disincentive to people who were selling homes in areas of low housing demand and others felt that any attempt to define that and draw a circle on a map would lead to red lining and stigmatising. The Select Committee weighed up the evidence and in the end decided that something based on house price rather than a definition of low housing demand might be better. Even then, we said that the Government should monitor carefully whatever they chose to do, because we were not absolutely certain that we got it right. The Government's response was that they would think about the matter and that we should reflect on it and consult further. There are no absolute or definite views on it.
 I hope that the amendment is a probing amendment, because it would lock the Government into coming up with a definition of low housing demand, which might not be the right approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, clause 132 allows the Government to do something in the future if they feel that it is appropriate, whether with price or low housing demand. It leaves the option open. Also, as I understand it, the option is not only to exempt completely but to exempt to a degree. The wording, ''to such extent'' gives greater flexibility. 
 I probably thought initially that I was in favour of an exemption, but I understand the opposing arguments. I can imagine a situation where the argument would be that the cost would put people off selling. I am not sure that it would. If people are going to move up from a property of £25,000 and they are looking to buy somewhere worth £40,000 or £45,000 I am not sure that having to pay the additional cost of a condition survey—what we are really talking about—will put them off. People will have conveyancing and searches to do anyway; that element will be paid for. 
 I wonder whether we might end up with a reverse situation where the condition survey might create a greater degree of certainty that people would not otherwise get. I am thinking of the people who occasionally come to my surgery—I am sure we have all met them—who have bought property in a low-demand area and have paid what was a low price in conventional terms, but quite a high price for people on their income. They suddenly find, having bought the property, that the place starts to fall apart, and they cannot afford the structural repair bills to put it right.

Brian Iddon: Would my hon. Friend consider the scenario where an elderly person has to give up their home to proceed into residential care, or a person, for whatever reason, is moving from one town to another and knows that their house is going to sell for a fairly low price for that area? In such cases, they may take the view that it is better to rent out the property than lose the £500 or £600. Would that not increase the number of rented properties in low-demand areas, when it is rented properties that sometimes cause the problems?

Clive Betts: It might, and we are speculating how things might work out. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he says is a possibility, but there is another. For example, someone may go along to consider purchasing such a property. An elderly person may have lived in that property for a long time, but in the past few years they might not have had the wherewithal to maintain it to the highest standards. When the person looks at that property, they might see pretty old kitchen units, a bathroom that has not been modernised for years and windows that have not been painted regularly. They might start to think, ''I'm not quite sure about this. The property looks a bit run down, dilapidated and out of date. Do I really want to purchase it?''
 However, if they had a condition survey that confirmed that, despite the old bathroom and the need to replace the kitchen units, the roof, the walls and the floors were okay structurally, a young couple looking to buy might think, ''We'll look at the property. The price is relatively low. The structures, which we might have worried about, are fine according to the survey. We'll work for the next two or three years to put the other issues right, which are not superficial, but we can manage them ourselves with the budget that we have.'' 
 I wonder whether having a survey, which will be required in the home information pack, might provide a greater degree of certainty in the case of properties that often look poor and run down, but might be sound structurally. On the other hand, the packs might protect people from getting themselves in an awful hole, where they buy a property because they can just about afford it, and find that the repair bills come in after a couple of years as the walls begin to sag, the damp-proof course proves ineffective and the roof leaks, and they are unable to pay for its upkeep. 
 There are two sides to the issue. There is certainly the question of the cost of the pack in relation to the value of the property, and there are other questions to which I am not sure I have the answers, but it is at least worth reflecting on them.

[Continued in column 559]Column Number: 555